If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
"Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Copyright violation in the US is a federal offense I don't live in the US. I know you don't, but you said it is only a civil offense in the US. I pointed out that it is a federal offense. I don't speak lawyerese. To me, theft is still theft, whether punishable under civil or criminal law, or no law at all. What you call theft others call fair use. It's a subjective thing and may have something to do with your upbringing. I am against theft and all my software licenses are paid for but the prospect of buying one license and being able to install it on the three computers I own is appealing. Using the software for which you have not paid is copyright violation . A civil offense. Whether a civil offense or criminal offense, theft is theft. It is not only an issue of law, it is an issue of morals. Taking something that does not belong to you is immoral. But MS defines if you're taking something or not, not you or any higher moral authority. If you could legally install XP or Vista on all your home computers and only have to buy one license, you would do it and not consider it theft. If you did not pay for it, and you are using a copy of someone else's software, whether illegal civilly or criminally, it is still illegal, and it is still theft. No, it's a civil offense. Interesting how MS' EULA gives them the right to change the rules at any time but if you go back on your agreement, you think they should be locked up and have their lives ruined. If there is no profit motive, where I live, it is not a crime or a civil offense. But there IS a profit motive. By not paying for it, you haved PROFITED!!! directly by saving the amount of money you SHOULD have paid for that product, according to the EULA to which you technically agreed by your use of the software. No, that's MS' profit motive, not allowing someone to install something they bought on as many computers they want to in the privacy of their home. I define "theft" as taking something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to use. Who decides what belongs to whom and who has the right to use it, you? No, not me. In this case, Microsoft's EULA, which you technically agree to by your use of the software, defines who has the right to use it. Thanks for confirming my point. MS is the law, eh? Interesting concept. On a broader scale, if I walked into your house and took your TV, would that be theft? If you want to copy my TV and leave me the original, be my guest. According to your standards, it seems it would only be theft if you could prove that you owned it. What if you could not find your receipt? I guess you would be OK with me taking it. Cool! What's your address? Keep trying, maybe you'll come up with a comparable analogy. That transcends your requirement for it to be a criminal act. No, that is your vague opinion of what theft is. My opinion was not vague. If it does not belong to you, or you have no right to use it, and you take it, it is theft. If I lived in a country that had no laws of any kind, but I took another man's car that he had purchased, it would still be theft. It is a moral issue as well as an issue of law. Apparently, you lack the moral fortitude to understand that concept. Not much I can do about that. I buy XP. It belongs to me. The country I live in says I can do what I want to with it in the privacy of my home and you call it theft. In your country, is the Microsoft EULA written to allow use of someone else's Volume License Key to run the Microsoft software? If not, then it is still theft. Not if there's no profit motive. If you copy XP and sell the copy, you're in trouble. If you copy it and put it on another computer or give it to a friend, you aren't. It will be really interesting to read the new EULA now that this is law here. I'll be sure and post it ;-) Again, there IS a profit motive. Each person who does not pay for the copy he/she uses has PROFITED directly by not having to fork out the few bucks for the software. That is an economic profit. The only profit motive you're talking about comes from MS. I would prefer to be on high moral ground than to be an underground rat that steals from people. Gregg There's no reason to refer to me as an "underground rat" or "an unscrupulous person". Can you please stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks? OK, I'll take back the "rat" comment, but I stand by the "unscrupulous person" tag, for the reasons mentioned above. I pitty your neighbors when they buy something nice and you take it. What? You would never do that? Sure you would...you say it's OK to do it with software, why not your neighbor's possessions? Gregg Casual copying is not the same as stealing a TV set. I am against stealing. I just disagree with you regarding casual copying of software with no profit motive (reselling the software, as whether one would buy it or not if one had to pay is not established and speculation). Alias Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Software piracy is no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your computer, TV, jewels, etc. It is THEFT. I'll bet you would be upset if someone stole YOUR belongings, but you seem to think it is OK to do just because Bill has more money than you do. Um, in the country where I live, sharing software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is no financial gain. Oops. In the USA, if you copy XP that you paid for, it is NOT theft but copyright violation, a civil, not criminal, offense. Don't be such an unscrupulous person. Gregg Get off your high moral horse and do some research before you stick your hoof in your mouth again. Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Bruce Chambers wrote: wrote: These keys have been reported few times in June, but are still valid up to this moment !! Well, we'll see. Microsoft can't do much about the contents of Chinese web sites, but they can, if they so desire, disable those keys. They don't desire to do that. They are still saturating the Chinese market. In the meantime, let's hope that Microsoft at least prosecutes you for aiding and abetting in software piracy. That'll be the day! MS take someone to court to uphold their scammy EULA? Give me a break. Alias |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Scroll down.
"Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Copyright violation in the US is a federal offense I don't live in the US. I know you don't, but you said it is only a civil offense in the US. I pointed out that it is a federal offense. I don't speak lawyerese. To me, theft is still theft, whether punishable under civil or criminal law, or no law at all. What you call theft others call fair use. It's a subjective thing and may have something to do with your upbringing. I am against theft and all my software licenses are paid for but the prospect of buying one license and being able to install it on the three computers I own is appealing. Using the software for which you have not paid is copyright violation . A civil offense. Whether a civil offense or criminal offense, theft is theft. It is not only an issue of law, it is an issue of morals. Taking something that does not belong to you is immoral. But MS defines if you're taking something or not, not you or any higher moral authority. And if I walked into your house and took your TV, then YOU would be defining if it is stolen, which puts you in the exact same boat as Microsoft. Microsoft paid people to develop the software, then they wrote a license agreement, then they sold the license to use the product. They made it, they have the right to determine the licensing of it. They have the right to determine its legal use. It is beyond me how you can rationalize using it without buying it, according to the rules set forth by whomever developed the product. If you could legally install XP or Vista on all your home computers and only have to buy one license, you would do it and not consider it theft. You are correct. However, no matter in what country I reside, if I did NOT pay for the product, which users of the leaked keys have failed to do, then it would still be theft, whether or not the law calls it as such. Again, you have no right to use something for which no one has paid, unless the manufacturer has given you a free copy. If the EULA says I can install it on ONE computer, and my country's law says otherwise, I consider it theft to install on more than one computer, because the manufacturer of the software wrote the license terms, not your country of residence. If you did not pay for it, and you are using a copy of someone else's software, whether illegal civilly or criminally, it is still illegal, and it is still theft. No, it's a civil offense. Interesting how MS' EULA gives them the right to change the rules at any time but if you go back on your agreement, you think they should be locked up and have their lives ruined. If there is no profit motive, where I live, it is not a crime or a civil offense. But there IS a profit motive. By not paying for it, you haved PROFITED!!! directly by saving the amount of money you SHOULD have paid for that product, according to the EULA to which you technically agreed by your use of the software. No, that's MS' profit motive, not allowing someone to install something they bought on as many computers they want to in the privacy of their home. It is YOUR profit motive as well. Of course it is Microsoft's profit motive, and the motive of every person on this planet who works for a living. You put in your hours at work, and gee whiz, you expect to get PAID. What a concept. You seem to think it is unfair that Micorosft also gets paid for their work. The amount of money they get is irrelevant. If it had nothing to do with the software pirate's own profit, then there is NO reason for anyone, regardless of country of residence, NOT to pay for it. The ONLY reason that people do not pay for it is so that they can PROFIT by not spending the money. Read the EULA; you did not buy the product, you bought the right to use it, per the terms of the license agreement. If you do not agree with those terms, then simply DO NOT use the product. There is no moral justification for your viewpoint. If you cannot meet the manufacturer's requirements to pay for each license, then don't use it. Why limit your view to the privacy of your own home? Why not buy one package and install it on all 10,000 computers in your business? Whether you steal one apple or the whole damn orchard, you are still stealing. Theft is theft, regardless of the amount which was taken or the purpose for which it was taken. I define "theft" as taking something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to use. Who decides what belongs to whom and who has the right to use it, you? No, not me. In this case, Microsoft's EULA, which you technically agree to by your use of the software, defines who has the right to use it. Thanks for confirming my point. MS is the law, eh? Interesting concept. I did not confirm your point. MS is not the law. MS is the manufacturer of the product that **you agreed to use** under their license conditions. MS absolutely has the right to determine who gets to use the product...those who pay for it. **How** you use it is up to you. The fact that you **do** use it requires license compliance. On a broader scale, if I walked into your house and took your TV, would that be theft? If you want to copy my TV and leave me the original, be my guest. According to your standards, it seems it would only be theft if you could prove that you owned it. What if you could not find your receipt? I guess you would be OK with me taking it. Cool! What's your address? Keep trying, maybe you'll come up with a comparable analogy. OK, if you provide a service that costs you money, say you are a plumber or a programmer, do you do 50% of your work for free? Why not? You are asking Microsoft to do so. Turn your little table around and put yourself in the place of the person not receiving compensation for each piece of his work. More below. That transcends your requirement for it to be a criminal act. No, that is your vague opinion of what theft is. My opinion was not vague. If it does not belong to you, or you have no right to use it, and you take it, it is theft. If I lived in a country that had no laws of any kind, but I took another man's car that he had purchased, it would still be theft. It is a moral issue as well as an issue of law. Apparently, you lack the moral fortitude to understand that concept. Not much I can do about that. I buy XP. It belongs to me. The country I live in says I can do what I want to with it in the privacy of my home and you call it theft. First of all, this thread is discussing illegally leaked volume license keys, but the principal applies to you as well. Unless your XP EULA is written differently than the one in the US, you buy a **license to use** the XP code, **subject to the conditions of the license.** You did **not** buy the product code itself. If the manufacturer requires you to buy a license for each installation of the XP code, and your country flagrantly says "who gives a crap" about the manufacturer, you are still stealing. As I mentioned before, something does not have to be illegal for it to be wrong morally. In your country, is the Microsoft EULA written to allow use of someone else's Volume License Key to run the Microsoft software? If not, then it is still theft. Not if there's no profit motive. If you copy XP and sell the copy, you're in trouble. If you copy it and put it on another computer or give it to a friend, you aren't. It will be really interesting to read the new EULA now that this is law here. I'll be sure and post it ;-) Again, there IS a profit motive. Each person who does not pay for the copy he/she uses has PROFITED directly by not having to fork out the few bucks for the software. That is an economic profit. The only profit motive you're talking about comes from MS. Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. If XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. I would prefer to be on high moral ground than to be an underground rat that steals from people. Gregg There's no reason to refer to me as an "underground rat" or "an unscrupulous person". Can you please stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks? OK, I'll take back the "rat" comment, but I stand by the "unscrupulous person" tag, for the reasons mentioned above. I pity your neighbors when they buy something nice and you take it. What? You would never do that? Sure you would...you say it's OK to do it with software, why not your neighbor's possessions? Gregg Casual copying is not the same as stealing a TV set. I am against stealing. I just disagree with you regarding casual copying of software with no profit motive (reselling the software, as whether one would buy it or not if one had to pay is not established and speculation). Alias Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. Again, if XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. That is YOUR profit motive, not Microsoft's. Let's take that TV and make it 100 of them, sitting in your local electronics store. It is the store's profit motive to sell those TVs at a higher price than it cost to purchase them so that they can pay their employees and have some left over for fun or philanthropy. It is Microsoft's profit motive to sell the license for XP at a price higher than what it cost to have it developed. That store paid to get those TVs in stock. Microsoft paid to get the software developed. The store sells ten TVs. Microsoft sells one license to use the XP code. The store gets robbed and thieves take the other 90. Microsoft gets robbed when someone releases a key to load the software. The store makes no further profit, and they are out the cost of buying those TVs. The store closes, and its employees now go hungry. Microsoft makes no further profit on all uses of the software via the illegal key. Sure, MS can absorb it, but some companies cannot. That is not the point. The point is that the profit motive of the store was rightfully to make money, but the thieves' profit motive was not to spend any money, but to still enjoy the benefit of the product. That is precisely what you and the key leaker/poster are promoting. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it seems you just don't grasp the concept of theft. Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Software piracy is no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your computer, TV, jewels, etc. It is THEFT. I'll bet you would be upset if someone stole YOUR belongings, but you seem to think it is OK to do just because Bill has more money than you do. Um, in the country where I live, sharing software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is no financial gain. There IS financial gain on your part by you not spending the money on each license. I have no more time to spend trying to convince unscrupulous people that taking something that is not rightfully yours is theft. If you don't get it by now, there is no way any more typing on my part is going to convince you. I am just thankful that I was raised by honest people 40 years older than I am and who had strong moral values. Gregg Oops. In the USA, if you copy XP that you paid for, it is NOT theft but copyright violation, a civil, not criminal, offense. Don't be such an unscrupulous person. Gregg Get off your high moral horse and do some research before you stick your hoof in your mouth again. Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Bruce Chambers wrote: wrote: These keys have been reported few times in June, but are still valid up to this moment !! Well, we'll see. Microsoft can't do much about the contents of Chinese web sites, but they can, if they so desire, disable those keys. They don't desire to do that. They are still saturating the Chinese market. In the meantime, let's hope that Microsoft at least prosecutes you for aiding and abetting in software piracy. That'll be the day! MS take someone to court to uphold their scammy EULA? Give me a break. Alias |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
Scroll down. "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Copyright violation in the US is a federal offense I don't live in the US. I know you don't, but you said it is only a civil offense in the US. I pointed out that it is a federal offense. I don't speak lawyerese. To me, theft is still theft, whether punishable under civil or criminal law, or no law at all. What you call theft others call fair use. It's a subjective thing and may have something to do with your upbringing. I am against theft and all my software licenses are paid for but the prospect of buying one license and being able to install it on the three computers I own is appealing. Using the software for which you have not paid is copyright violation . A civil offense. Whether a civil offense or criminal offense, theft is theft. It is not only an issue of law, it is an issue of morals. Taking something that does not belong to you is immoral. But MS defines if you're taking something or not, not you or any higher moral authority. And if I walked into your house and took your TV, then YOU would be defining if it is stolen, which puts you in the exact same boat as Microsoft. Microsoft paid people to develop the software, then they wrote a license agreement, then they sold the license to use the product. They made it, they have the right to determine the licensing of it. They have the right to determine its legal use. It is beyond me how you can rationalize using it without buying it, according to the rules set forth by whomever developed the product. If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it on as many computers as the I like. Millions, if not billions, of people agree with me. If you could legally install XP or Vista on all your home computers and only have to buy one license, you would do it and not consider it theft. You are correct. However, no matter in what country I reside, if I did NOT pay for the product, which users of the leaked keys have failed to do, then it would still be theft, whether or not the law calls it as such. Again, you have no right to use something for which no one has paid, unless the manufacturer has given you a free copy. If the EULA says I can install it on ONE computer, and my country's law says otherwise, I consider it theft to install on more than one computer, because the manufacturer of the software wrote the license terms, not your country of residence. One cannot get one's money back after opening the package. One cannot read the EULA until after one opens the package and starts the installation. Ergo, such a scammy EULA is null and void. All stores say you are buying software and NONE tell you you are buying a license. Who's the thief in this picture? If you did not pay for it, and you are using a copy of someone else's software, whether illegal civilly or criminally, it is still illegal, and it is still theft. No, it's a civil offense. Interesting how MS' EULA gives them the right to change the rules at any time but if you go back on your agreement, you think they should be locked up and have their lives ruined. If there is no profit motive, where I live, it is not a crime or a civil offense. But there IS a profit motive. By not paying for it, you haved PROFITED!!! directly by saving the amount of money you SHOULD have paid for that product, according to the EULA to which you technically agreed by your use of the software. No, that's MS' profit motive, not allowing someone to install something they bought on as many computers they want to in the privacy of their home. It is YOUR profit motive as well. Of course it is Microsoft's profit motive, and the motive of every person on this planet who works for a living. You put in your hours at work, and gee whiz, you expect to get PAID. What a concept. You seem to think it is unfair that Micorosft also gets paid for their work. The amount of money they get is irrelevant. For all MS knows, I could be putting Linux on my other computers. Saying that I would pay if forced to is speculation. If it had nothing to do with the software pirate's own profit, then there is NO reason for anyone, regardless of country of residence, NOT to pay for it. The ONLY reason that people do not pay for it is so that they can PROFIT by not spending the money. Read the EULA; you did not buy the product, you bought the right to use it, per the terms of the license agreement. If you do not agree with those terms, then simply DO NOT use the product. There is no moral justification for your viewpoint. If you cannot meet the manufacturer's requirements to pay for each license, then don't use it. Spain distinguishes between casual copying and copying to resell the copies. You apparently think they're the same thing. Why limit your view to the privacy of your own home? Why not buy one package and install it on all 10,000 computers in your business? Whether you steal one apple or the whole damn orchard, you are still stealing. Theft is theft, regardless of the amount which was taken or the purpose for which it was taken. Businesses don't enjoy the same fair use provisions that private parties do because, unlike private parties, they can write off the expense. I define "theft" as taking something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to use. Who decides what belongs to whom and who has the right to use it, you? No, not me. In this case, Microsoft's EULA, which you technically agree to by your use of the software, defines who has the right to use it. Thanks for confirming my point. MS is the law, eh? Interesting concept. I did not confirm your point. MS is not the law. MS is the manufacturer of the product that **you agreed to use** under their license conditions. MS absolutely has the right to determine who gets to use the product...those who pay for it. **How** you use it is up to you. The fact that you **do** use it requires license compliance. Um, the EULA is not available to agree to until it's too late to get your money back. Ye Olde Bait and Switch thievery. On a broader scale, if I walked into your house and took your TV, would that be theft? If you want to copy my TV and leave me the original, be my guest. According to your standards, it seems it would only be theft if you could prove that you owned it. What if you could not find your receipt? I guess you would be OK with me taking it. Cool! What's your address? Keep trying, maybe you'll come up with a comparable analogy. OK, if you provide a service that costs you money, say you are a plumber or a programmer, do you do 50% of your work for free? Why not? You are asking Microsoft to do so. Turn your little table around and put yourself in the place of the person not receiving compensation for each piece of his work. Um, a service cannot be copied and resold on the Internet. Do you even wonder why it's so hard to think of an appropriate analogy? More below. That transcends your requirement for it to be a criminal act. No, that is your vague opinion of what theft is. My opinion was not vague. If it does not belong to you, or you have no right to use it, and you take it, it is theft. If I lived in a country that had no laws of any kind, but I took another man's car that he had purchased, it would still be theft. It is a moral issue as well as an issue of law. Apparently, you lack the moral fortitude to understand that concept. Not much I can do about that. If I buy the license, it belongs to me. No theft. The disagreement you and I have is how I can use the license that I can only agree to after it's too late to get my money back. I buy XP. It belongs to me. The country I live in says I can do what I want to with it in the privacy of my home and you call it theft. First of all, this thread is discussing illegally leaked volume license keys, but the principal applies to you as well. Unless your XP EULA is written differently than the one in the US, you buy a **license to use** the XP code, **subject to the conditions of the license.** You did **not** buy the product code itself. And I can't get my money back if I install the license to the point where I can read the EULA. Ye Olde Catch 22 thievery. If the manufacturer requires you to buy a license for each installation of the XP code, and your country flagrantly says "who gives a crap" about the manufacturer, you are still stealing. As I mentioned before, something does not have to be illegal for it to be wrong morally. No, it is only stealing according to an EULA that I can't disagree to until it's too late for me to get my money back. Such a scammy EULA is null and void as far as I am concerned and I feel I have a right to use a license as I see fit in the privacy of my home under the fair use provisions. In your country, is the Microsoft EULA written to allow use of someone else's Volume License Key to run the Microsoft software? If not, then it is still theft. Not if there's no profit motive. If you copy XP and sell the copy, you're in trouble. If you copy it and put it on another computer or give it to a friend, you aren't. It will be really interesting to read the new EULA now that this is law here. I'll be sure and post it ;-) Again, there IS a profit motive. Each person who does not pay for the copy he/she uses has PROFITED directly by not having to fork out the few bucks for the software. That is an economic profit. The only profit motive you're talking about comes from MS. Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. If XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. See what I said about the EULA above. I would prefer to be on high moral ground than to be an underground rat that steals from people. Gregg There's no reason to refer to me as an "underground rat" or "an unscrupulous person". Can you please stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks? OK, I'll take back the "rat" comment, but I stand by the "unscrupulous person" tag, for the reasons mentioned above. I pity your neighbors when they buy something nice and you take it. What? You would never do that? Sure you would...you say it's OK to do it with software, why not your neighbor's possessions? Gregg Casual copying is not the same as stealing a TV set. I am against stealing. I just disagree with you regarding casual copying of software with no profit motive (reselling the software, as whether one would buy it or not if one had to pay is not established and speculation). Alias Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. Again, if XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. That is YOUR profit motive, not Microsoft's. You're assuming their EULA is fair, legal and the best thing since TIVO. Unfortunately for your argument, one cannot disagree to the EULA until it's too late to get your money back. Let's take that TV and make it 100 of them, sitting in your local electronics store. It is the store's profit motive to sell those TVs at a higher price than it cost to purchase them so that they can pay their employees and have some left over for fun or philanthropy. It is Microsoft's profit motive to sell the license for XP at a price higher than what it cost to have it developed. That store paid to get those TVs in stock. Microsoft paid to get the software developed. The store sells ten TVs. Microsoft sells one license to use the XP code. The store gets robbed and thieves take the other 90. Microsoft gets robbed when someone releases a key to load the software. The store makes no further profit, and they are out the cost of buying those TVs. The store closes, and its employees now go hungry. Microsoft makes no further profit on all uses of the software via the illegal key. Sure, MS can absorb it, but some companies cannot. That is not the point. The point is that the profit motive of the store was rightfully to make money, but the thieves' profit motive was not to spend any money, but to still enjoy the benefit of the product. That is precisely what you and the key leaker/poster are promoting. Your example is absurd at best when you consider that Microsoft made billions with 95/98/Me/Office 97-2000 and W2K, all widely copied for personal use and pirated. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it seems you just don't grasp the concept of theft. I never said that if one walks into a store and takes something that it isn't theft. Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Software piracy is no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your computer, TV, jewels, etc. It is THEFT. I'll bet you would be upset if someone stole YOUR belongings, but you seem to think it is OK to do just because Bill has more money than you do. Um, in the country where I live, sharing software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is no financial gain. There IS financial gain on your part by you not spending the money on each license. Financial gain from reselling the license, not fair use. I have no more time to spend trying to convince unscrupulous people that taking something that is not rightfully yours is theft. If you don't get it by now, there is no way any more typing on my part is going to convince you. I am just thankful that I was raised by honest people 40 years older than I am and who had strong moral values. Gregg You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing and do no time. You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England, stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel. To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them: Prohibition Segregation of blacks Revolutionary War Slavery Marijuana. Etc. Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and Texas could still give you life for one joint. Alias |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
I see that everyone else has given up on you, but I'll give it one last
shot, then you can reply all you want and it will be ignored. No, in your silly reasoning, this is not conceding defeat of my ideas, it is merely recognizing that there is probably nothing in the world that I can say that will get you to under the concept of theft. Answers in line, as usual. "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Scroll down. "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Copyright violation in the US is a federal offense I don't live in the US. I know you don't, but you said it is only a civil offense in the US. I pointed out that it is a federal offense. I don't speak lawyerese. To me, theft is still theft, whether punishable under civil or criminal law, or no law at all. What you call theft others call fair use. It's a subjective thing and may have something to do with your upbringing. I am against theft and all my software licenses are paid for but the prospect of buying one license and being able to install it on the three computers I own is appealing. Using the software for which you have not paid is copyright violation . A civil offense. Whether a civil offense or criminal offense, theft is theft. It is not only an issue of law, it is an issue of morals. Taking something that does not belong to you is immoral. But MS defines if you're taking something or not, not you or any higher moral authority. And if I walked into your house and took your TV, then YOU would be defining if it is stolen, which puts you in the exact same boat as Microsoft. Microsoft paid people to develop the software, then they wrote a license agreement, then they sold the license to use the product. They made it, they have the right to determine the licensing of it. They have the right to determine its legal use. It is beyond me how you can rationalize using it without buying it, according to the rules set forth by whomever developed the product. If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it on as many computers as the I like. Let's look at your statement, "If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it...." You do not seem to understand that what **you think** is not the issue here. The issue is that the manufacturer has a license to which you must agree if you are going to use the product. The manufacturer has the right to set the conditions of that licesne, since they created the product. If you do not agree with those conditions, do not use the product. Perhaps the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the manufacturer will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain that you read the EULA and disagree with it. In your case, you seem to understand the EULA already, so your argument is moot anyway. You know what the EULA says; you just disagree with it, but want to use the software YOUR way, because YOU think you are justified. Millions, if not billions, of people agree with me. Terrorists blew up a train in Spain. Millions of people agreed with that action and thought it was justified. Obviously, it was not. I use extreme examples because you are incapable of comprehending the simpler ones presented earlier. If you could legally install XP or Vista on all your home computers and only have to buy one license, you would do it and not consider it theft. You are correct. However, no matter in what country I reside, if I did NOT pay for the product, which users of the leaked keys have failed to do, then it would still be theft, whether or not the law calls it as such. Again, you have no right to use something for which no one has paid, unless the manufacturer has given you a free copy. If the EULA says I can install it on ONE computer, and my country's law says otherwise, I consider it theft to install on more than one computer, because the manufacturer of the software wrote the license terms, not your country of residence. One cannot get one's money back after opening the package. One cannot read the EULA until after one opens the package and starts the installation. Ergo, such a scammy EULA is null and void. All stores say you are buying software and NONE tell you you are buying a license. Who's the thief in this picture? You can open the box, read the EULA, then not agree to it, and return the product. Perhaps the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the manufacturer will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain that you read the EULA and disagree with it. If you did not pay for it, and you are using a copy of someone else's software, whether illegal civilly or criminally, it is still illegal, and it is still theft. No, it's a civil offense. Interesting how MS' EULA gives them the right to change the rules at any time but if you go back on your agreement, you think they should be locked up and have their lives ruined. If there is no profit motive, where I live, it is not a crime or a civil offense. But there IS a profit motive. By not paying for it, you haved PROFITED!!! directly by saving the amount of money you SHOULD have paid for that product, according to the EULA to which you technically agreed by your use of the software. No, that's MS' profit motive, not allowing someone to install something they bought on as many computers they want to in the privacy of their home. It is YOUR profit motive as well. Of course it is Microsoft's profit motive, and the motive of every person on this planet who works for a living. You put in your hours at work, and gee whiz, you expect to get PAID. What a concept. You seem to think it is unfair that Micorosft also gets paid for their work. The amount of money they get is irrelevant. For all MS knows, I could be putting Linux on my other computers. Saying that I would pay if forced to is speculation. And that comment was completely irrelevant to your argument. If you put Linux on your other computers, who cares? We are not discussing Linux, nor are we discussing whether or not Microsoft is **aware** of every single illegal or license-violating installation of their product. Whether or no they know about your improper use of the license does not have a bearing on whether or not the use is wrong, whether morally or legally. I made no mention of forcing anyone to pay. You claim that Spain calls it casual copying if there is no financial gain. I have already proven that every time you install it without a purchased license for each installation, you have gained financially, regardless of whether or not there is a law regulating it. Let's do the math again, first assuming an honest person of integrity is using the software in accordance with the license. He has four computers. XP costs $200 for each copy. He buys four copies for a total expenditure of $800. Now for the unscrupulous person. You have four computers. You buy one copy, then install it four times. Total cost of $200. Now $800 - $200 = $600, which is YOUR FINANCIAL GAIN from not using the license properly. If it had nothing to do with the software pirate's own profit, then there is NO reason for anyone, regardless of country of residence, NOT to pay for it. The ONLY reason that people do not pay for it is so that they can PROFIT by not spending the money. Read the EULA; you did not buy the product, you bought the right to use it, per the terms of the license agreement. If you do not agree with those terms, then simply DO NOT use the product. There is no moral justification for your viewpoint. If you cannot meet the manufacturer's requirements to pay for each license, then don't use it. Spain distinguishes between casual copying and copying to resell the copies. You apparently think they're the same thing. No, I never said they were the same thing. What I have been trying to pound into your thick head is that you are indeed achieving a financial gain by using the single license on multiple systems. You claim that Spain calls it casual copying if there is no financial gain. I have already proven that every time you install it without a purchased license for each installation, you have gained financially, regardless of whether or not there is a law regulating it. Let's do the math AGAIN, first assuming an honest person of integrity is using the software in accordance with the license. He has four computers. XP costs $200 for each copy. He buys four copies for a total expenditure of $800. Now for the unscrupulous person. You have four computers. You buy one copy, then install it four times. Total cost of $200. Now $800 - $200 = $600, which is YOUR FINANCIAL GAIN from not using the license properly. What part of your not having spent the extra &600 do you fail to see as financial gain. In this scenario, YOU are $600 ahead of the honest person, and that my boy, IS FINANCIAL GAIN. Period. Why limit your view to the privacy of your own home? Why not buy one package and install it on all 10,000 computers in your business? Whether you steal one apple or the whole damn orchard, you are still stealing. Theft is theft, regardless of the amount which was taken or the purpose for which it was taken. Businesses don't enjoy the same fair use provisions that private parties do because, unlike private parties, they can write off the expense. I define "theft" as taking something that does not belong to you and which you have no right to use. Who decides what belongs to whom and who has the right to use it, you? No, not me. In this case, Microsoft's EULA, which you technically agree to by your use of the software, defines who has the right to use it. Thanks for confirming my point. MS is the law, eh? Interesting concept. I did not confirm your point. MS is not the law. MS is the manufacturer of the product that **you agreed to use** under their license conditions. MS absolutely has the right to determine who gets to use the product...those who pay for it. **How** you use it is up to you. The fact that you **do** use it requires license compliance. Um, the EULA is not available to agree to until it's too late to get your money back. Ye Olde Bait and Switch thievery. Contact the manufacturer directly to get your money back. I have done it several times. Also, since you and the rest of the pirates are well aware of the license restrictions anyway, your point is moot. On a broader scale, if I walked into your house and took your TV, would that be theft? If you want to copy my TV and leave me the original, be my guest. According to your standards, it seems it would only be theft if you could prove that you owned it. What if you could not find your receipt? I guess you would be OK with me taking it. Cool! What's your address? Keep trying, maybe you'll come up with a comparable analogy. OK, if you provide a service that costs you money, say you are a plumber or a programmer, do you do 50% of your work for free? Why not? You are asking Microsoft to do so. Turn your little table around and put yourself in the place of the person not receiving compensation for each piece of his work. Um, a service cannot be copied and resold on the Internet. Do you even wonder why it's so hard to think of an appropriate analogy? And why does something have to copied and sold on the Internet to be able to be stolen? The analogy of the programmer noted above is perfect, because that is what is happening with Microsoft. OK, let's use your little mental restriction, since you seem incapapble of realizing that things can be stolen not just via electronic distribution. Here we go. You are a programmer. You write a program that took you thousands of hours to develop. Lots of people want to use your program. You sell someone a license to use it on one computer, because you need to make money back to compensate you for those thousands of hours of work. He is a person just like you who thinks you have no right to collect funds for each license sold. He reasons, "I bought the software, I can do whatever I want with it. If I buy the license, it belongs to me. No theft." He then takes the license key and posts it on the Internet, hands it to the guy next door, and mails it to a friend in China, covering three means of distribution (electronic, physical, and mail). Soon, millions of people just like you are using YOUR program on their systems, yet you have only been paid for one copy. Do you honestly think you would have no problem with that scenario? An analogy does not have to be an exact match to a situation in order to be applicable. The point of the analogy is that the provider of a service, the writer of a program, the painter of an art work, the manufacturer of a product, all have the right to be compensated for each use of their service, each installation of their program, each painting sold, or each product used. Again, turn your little table around and put yourself in the place of the person not receiving compensation for each piece of his work. YOU want ot be compensated fo rall of your work, no matter what form it takes, so why do you still feel Microsoft has no right to be compensated? More below. That transcends your requirement for it to be a criminal act. No, that is your vague opinion of what theft is. My opinion was not vague. If it does not belong to you, or you have no right to use it, and you take it, it is theft. If I lived in a country that had no laws of any kind, but I took another man's car that he had purchased, it would still be theft. It is a moral issue as well as an issue of law. Apparently, you lack the moral fortitude to understand that concept. Not much I can do about that. If I buy the license, it belongs to me. No theft. The disagreement you and I have is how I can use the license that I can only agree to after it's too late to get my money back. I buy XP. It belongs to me. The country I live in says I can do what I want to with it in the privacy of my home and you call it theft. First of all, this thread is discussing illegally leaked volume license keys, but the principal applies to you as well. Unless your XP EULA is written differently than the one in the US, you buy a **license to use** the XP code, **subject to the conditions of the license.** You did **not** buy the product code itself. And I can't get my money back if I install the license to the point where I can read the EULA. Ye Olde Catch 22 thievery. If the manufacturer requires you to buy a license for each installation of the XP code, and your country flagrantly says "who gives a crap" about the manufacturer, you are still stealing. As I mentioned before, something does not have to be illegal for it to be wrong morally. No, it is only stealing according to an EULA that I can't disagree to until it's too late for me to get my money back. Such a scammy EULA is null and void as far as I am concerned and I feel I have a right to use a license as I see fit in the privacy of my home under the fair use provisions. In your country, is the Microsoft EULA written to allow use of someone else's Volume License Key to run the Microsoft software? If not, then it is still theft. Not if there's no profit motive. If you copy XP and sell the copy, you're in trouble. If you copy it and put it on another computer or give it to a friend, you aren't. It will be really interesting to read the new EULA now that this is law here. I'll be sure and post it ;-) Again, there IS a profit motive. Each person who does not pay for the copy he/she uses has PROFITED directly by not having to fork out the few bucks for the software. That is an economic profit. The only profit motive you're talking about comes from MS. Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. If XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. See what I said about the EULA above. #1, you can return the product to Microsoft directly. #2, you still have the legal right to install it on ONE computer, so you have no need to return it. The whole point of this discussion is use of one license on multiple systems, and you already know that is against the EULA. I would prefer to be on high moral ground than to be an underground rat that steals from people. Gregg There's no reason to refer to me as an "underground rat" or "an unscrupulous person". Can you please stick to the issues and avoid personal attacks? OK, I'll take back the "rat" comment, but I stand by the "unscrupulous person" tag, for the reasons mentioned above. I pity your neighbors when they buy something nice and you take it. What? You would never do that? Sure you would...you say it's OK to do it with software, why not your neighbor's possessions? Gregg Casual copying is not the same as stealing a TV set. I am against stealing. I just disagree with you regarding casual copying of software with no profit motive (reselling the software, as whether one would buy it or not if one had to pay is not established and speculation). Alias Nope, YOUR profit motive is still there. Again, if XP costs $200 for each copy, and you buy one license which the EULA allows you to use on one computer, but you install it on four computers, you just PROFITED buy not spending the additional $600. That is YOUR profit motive, not Microsoft's. You're assuming their EULA is fair, legal and the best thing since TIVO. Unfortunately for your argument, one cannot disagree to the EULA until it's too late to get your money back. Let's take that TV and make it 100 of them, sitting in your local electronics store. It is the store's profit motive to sell those TVs at a higher price than it cost to purchase them so that they can pay their employees and have some left over for fun or philanthropy. It is Microsoft's profit motive to sell the license for XP at a price higher than what it cost to have it developed. That store paid to get those TVs in stock. Microsoft paid to get the software developed. The store sells ten TVs. Microsoft sells one license to use the XP code. The store gets robbed and thieves take the other 90. Microsoft gets robbed when someone releases a key to load the software. The store makes no further profit, and they are out the cost of buying those TVs. The store closes, and its employees now go hungry. Microsoft makes no further profit on all uses of the software via the illegal key. Sure, MS can absorb it, but some companies cannot. That is not the point. The point is that the profit motive of the store was rightfully to make money, but the thieves' profit motive was not to spend any money, but to still enjoy the benefit of the product. That is precisely what you and the key leaker/poster are promoting. Your example is absurd at best when you consider that Microsoft made billions with 95/98/Me/Office 97-2000 and W2K, all widely copied for personal use and pirated. Again, if you steal one apple or the whole damn orchard, you are still a thief. Thievery is not dependent upon the amount stolen, not is it dependent upon the number of times something is stolen, but it is dependent upon whether or not ANYTHING was taken without permission or compensation, or was used in violation of the license in this case. How much money Microsoft has made is not the issue. Proper moral and legal use of the license conditions IS the issue. You seem to justify taking things from people who have more money than you do. Guess what? Every thug who mugs someone uses the same thought process. "You have way more money than I do, therefore I can take some of yours." The point is that the profit motive of the store was rightfully to make money, but the thieves' profit motive was not to spend any money, but to still enjoy the benefit of the product. Whether that store made $2 on each TV or $20,000 on each sale, is NOT THE POINT. The point is that EACH instance of someone getting one of the store's TVs is rightfully due a compensation. Yes, that is an extreme example, but it seems you just don't grasp the concept of theft. I never said that if one walks into a store and takes something that it isn't theft. But apparently a person virtually "walking into" an Internet web site and doing the exact same thing is not theft in your mind. Ask your self WHY is there a difference? If I get into a bank's accounting system via the Internet and transfer $600 to my account, I didn't steal it, right, because I never actually walked into a bank. Ludicrous! THEFT IS THEFT, no matter the means used to get the product, service, or whatever, without properly compensating the creator or provider of the product or service. You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am done with you. Gregg Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: Software piracy is no different than someone who walks into your house and steals your computer, TV, jewels, etc. It is THEFT. I'll bet you would be upset if someone stole YOUR belongings, but you seem to think it is OK to do just because Bill has more money than you do. Um, in the country where I live, sharing software is called "fair use" and is not illegal at all as long as there is no financial gain. There IS financial gain on your part by you not spending the money on each license. Financial gain from reselling the license, not fair use. I have no more time to spend trying to convince unscrupulous people that taking something that is not rightfully yours is theft. If you don't get it by now, there is no way any more typing on my part is going to convince you. I am just thankful that I was raised by honest people 40 years older than I am and who had strong moral values. Gregg You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing and do no time. You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England, stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel. To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them: Prohibition Segregation of blacks Revolutionary War Slavery Marijuana. Etc. Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and Texas could still give you life for one joint. Alias |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am done with you. Gregg Promises, promises. How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?: You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing and do no time. You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England, stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel. To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them: Prohibition Segregation of blacks Revolutionary War Slavery Marijuana. Etc. Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and Texas could still give you life for one joint. Alias |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:57:11 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:
Let's look at your statement, "If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it...." You do not seem to understand that what **you think** is not the issue here. The issue is that the manufacturer has a license to which you must agree if you are going to use the product. The manufacturer has the right to set the conditions of that licesne, since they created the product. Actually there's some question on that. Not only do European countries set limits on the enforceability of various shrink-wrap provisions, but even in the US there's some disagreement among the courts. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine "The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the Supreme Court." That's not to say that piracy is legal in the US. US Copyright Law prevents copying for the use of others, *unless* the license permits it. If the EULA invalid then that just means you lose the right to make copies for others. However, depending on the court, arbitrary conditions and restrictions might not be legally binding. If you do not agree with those conditions, do not use the product. By putting their product on the market, the seller has agreed to be bound by the laws and regulations governing sales of goods and services. If those laws and regulations say that parts of the seller's shrink-wrap license isn't valid, then buyers are under no legal or moral obligation to respect those parts. Perhaps the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the manufacturer will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain that you read the EULA and disagree with it. Yeah, right. Have you ever tried taking a software package back to a retail store after opening it to read the EULA, or tried to get a refund out of the software vendor for a package purchased at a retail store? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote: I see that everyone else has given up on you, but I'll give it one last shot, then you can reply all you want and it will be ignored. No, in your silly reasoning, this is not conceding defeat of my ideas, it is merely recognizing that there is probably nothing in the world that I can say that will get you to under the concept of theft. Gregg, you forget to realise that the concept of theft to you or to me may not be the same as the concept to the courts in various jurisdictions. I am sure MS must have seen these serial numbers but it is very unlikely anything can be done at present without causing incovenience to chinese government department where these numbers must have come from! USA doesn't try anything (as stupid as bombing) against chinese government for obvious reasons. Best thing is to ignore such messages and join them if your can't win them! Fat Kev |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Alias,
I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll respond. You are wrong in your assumptions about my upbringing. I was raised by an atheist father and a Catholic mother who almost never went to church. I have no faith in God. However, my Dad was born in 1918, my Mom in 1920, and I in 1959, so my values come from an older generation, the one that went through the Great Depression. My grandfather (my Mom's father) was an Italian immigrant who came here (legally) around 1910 or so with nothing but the shirt on his back, and not speaking a word of English. He was 16 and worked in the rail yards and coal mines for years, rather than just claim being poor as an excuse to steal. He worked a few years and made enough money to go back to Italy for a month or so, pump out a baby, then come back here to work some more, then go back and make another baby, then do it again. Finally, in 1929, he had enough money to get the whole family over here. Imagine his situation now, in 1929, right after the crash, with his family of three kids, and his parents who were too sick to work much. He and his family lived through the entire Great Depression. My Mom, who was the poorer of my two parents, never stole anything from anyone (neither did anyone else in the family, nor did my Dad), in spite of having to wipe her ass with a Sears catalog because the family could not afford toilet paper. They lived in a house with no electricity and had an outhouse. They were better off in Italy! Sorry, but being poor does NOT equate to having lower moral values. Having low moral values is something you CHOOSE, because you CAN change that. Your attitude sounds like that of someone I worked with a few years back. He had been in jail for stealing radios out of cars, and he told me that I just did not understand being poor and not having food to eat. I asked him if he and his stealing buddies spent every single penny they got from those stolen radios on food. The answer was NO, some of it went to booze and drugs. I then asked if he had approached the owner of each vehicle and had asked them for a few dollars in exchange for washing their vehicle or some other form of honest work. Again, the answer was no. He CHOSE to steal instead, rather than even ask if there were some way to EARN the money for food. I like your comment that, "...stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime." But you did call it stealing, and that is morally wrong. How many times do I have to explain to you that something does not have to be illegal to be wrong? It does not matter the amount taken without permission to be wrong. Raping a woman in certain countries is not punishable by law, but do you consider it OK to do so if it happens within the borders of that country? "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am done with you. Gregg Promises, promises. How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?: You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing and do no time. You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England, stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel. To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them: Prohibition Segregation of blacks Revolutionary War Slavery Marijuana. Etc. Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and Texas could still give you life for one joint. Alias I certainly hope you do not equate any of the above with using software on a computer, which is a total luxury. My logic would in no way condone slavery. While I do not have faith in God, the Bible still has **tremendous** value in its teachings, such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even though I do not have faith in God, I do realize that it isn't rocket science to know that you should treat people as you would want them to treat you. If you do not want to be owned, abused, whipped, or killed, then you should not own, abuse, whip, or kill someone else. (Yes, that is a huge over-simplification of slavery, but the discussion is not about that travesty in our history). The principal applies to software. If you don't want people stealing from you, don't steal from people (or from Microsoft). I am adamantly against alcohol because of the damage I have seen it do to my friends and to others, but I would not say that no one can drink it. It just enrages me that some piece of garbage kills an entire family with his car because he wanted to drink a beer. That beer was more valuable to him than a human life, and that is just plain twisted. The US would not be a colony of England, because when those people left England to come here and start a new life, the British government had no right to come here and force them to obey the laws of Britain. We had every right to kick their butts out of here. Of course, the ones who came here had no right to screw the Indians, but that is a whole other thread. And as for getting life for one joint, man, I hope not, or our ex-toking(?) President would be in deep doo-doo! Sorry, GW, that just slipped out! I do not look at our planet as you do, with divisional lines drawn on a map. That only leads to people hating each other just because the other guy lives on a different piece of dirt, or worships a different deity. I hate to break the news to you, but you are a human first, then a person of a certain country and/or religion, or lack thereof. If all lines on all maps got erased, and all religions ceased to exist, all you would have left is a bunch of humans living on a big wet rock in space. You can change your country, you can change your religion, but you cannot change the fact that you are a human being. Look at it that way and you see the fallacy of war, stealing from other people, hating your neighbor because he is Muslim or she is Christian, etc. Is it OK with you if I do not respond any further and actually spend my time doing some work, or having fun with my wife? In closing, moral values are something you choose. I choose to keep mine where they are and treat people as I would have them treat me. Take care, Alias! Gregg |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Apparently you missed the point about not taking something from someone
without permission or compensation. As I said before, it does not have to be illegal to be wrong. And, yes, I have returned software products before. Gregg "arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2006.11.10.19.20.21.16456@goawayspammers. com... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 09:57:11 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote: Let's look at your statement, "If I buy it, I think I should be able to install it...." You do not seem to understand that what **you think** is not the issue here. The issue is that the manufacturer has a license to which you must agree if you are going to use the product. The manufacturer has the right to set the conditions of that licesne, since they created the product. Actually there's some question on that. Not only do European countries set limits on the enforceability of various shrink-wrap provisions, but even in the US there's some disagreement among the courts. See for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Sale_Doctrine "The first-sale doctrine as it relates to computer software is an area of legal confusion. Software publishers claim the first-sale doctrine does not apply because software is licensed, not sold, under the terms of an End User License Agreement (EULA). The courts have issued contrary decisions regarding the first-sale rights of consumers. Bauer & Cie. v. O'Donnell and Bobbs-Merrill Co. v. Straus are two US Supreme Court cases that deal with copyright holders trying to enforce terms beyond the scope of copyright and patent, but calling it a license. Many state courts have also ruled that a sale of software is indeed a sale of goods under the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC) at the point where funds are exchanged for the physical copy of the software. The licensed and not sold argument is held mostly in the 8th and 7th Circuits while other circuits tend to support the opposite, thus leading to conflicting court opinions such as seen in the 3rd Circuit Step-Saver Data Systems, Inc. v. Wyse Technology and fifth circuit Vault Corp. v. Quaid Software as opposed to the 8th Circuit Blizzard v. BNETD (Davidson & Associates v. Internet Gateway Inc (2004)), which have not been resolved by the Supreme Court." That's not to say that piracy is legal in the US. US Copyright Law prevents copying for the use of others, *unless* the license permits it. If the EULA invalid then that just means you lose the right to make copies for others. However, depending on the court, arbitrary conditions and restrictions might not be legally binding. If you do not agree with those conditions, do not use the product. By putting their product on the market, the seller has agreed to be bound by the laws and regulations governing sales of goods and services. If those laws and regulations say that parts of the seller's shrink-wrap license isn't valid, then buyers are under no legal or moral obligation to respect those parts. Perhaps the store from which you bought it will hassle you, but the manufacturer will accept return of your product in most cases if you explain that you read the EULA and disagree with it. Yeah, right. Have you ever tried taking a software package back to a retail store after opening it to read the EULA, or tried to get a refund out of the software vendor for a package purchased at a retail store? |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
If you had read my posts, you would understand that something being wrong is
not dependent upon there being a law against it. Regardless of the jurisdiction, taking something without permission and without compensation is wrong. I am glad that I had parents who taught my some values. I intend to ignore them now. There apparently is no way to get Alias to understand the concept. Gregg Hill "Fat Kev" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: I see that everyone else has given up on you, but I'll give it one last shot, then you can reply all you want and it will be ignored. No, in your silly reasoning, this is not conceding defeat of my ideas, it is merely recognizing that there is probably nothing in the world that I can say that will get you to under the concept of theft. Gregg, you forget to realise that the concept of theft to you or to me may not be the same as the concept to the courts in various jurisdictions. I am sure MS must have seen these serial numbers but it is very unlikely anything can be done at present without causing incovenience to chinese government department where these numbers must have come from! USA doesn't try anything (as stupid as bombing) against chinese government for obvious reasons. Best thing is to ignore such messages and join them if your can't win them! Fat Kev |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Gregg Hill wrote:
Alias, I did not respond because I did not see that part in your post. I thought I had read it all. OK, for your sake regarding this portion, I'll respond. You are wrong in your assumptions about my upbringing. I was raised by an atheist father and a Catholic mother who almost never went to church. I have no faith in God. However, my Dad was born in 1918, my Mom in 1920, and I in 1959, so my values come from an older generation, the one that went through the Great Depression. My grandfather (my Mom's father) was an Italian immigrant who came here (legally) around 1910 or so with nothing but the shirt on his back, and not speaking a word of English. He was 16 and worked in the rail yards and coal mines for years, rather than just claim being poor as an excuse to steal. He worked a few years and made enough money to go back to Italy for a month or so, pump out a baby, then come back here to work some more, then go back and make another baby, then do it again. Finally, in 1929, he had enough money to get the whole family over here. Imagine his situation now, in 1929, right after the crash, with his family of three kids, and his parents who were too sick to work much. He and his family lived through the entire Great Depression. My Mom, who was the poorer of my two parents, never stole anything from anyone (neither did anyone else in the family, nor did my Dad), in spite of having to wipe her ass with a Sears catalog because the family could not afford toilet paper. They lived in a house with no electricity and had an outhouse. They were better off in Italy! Sorry, but being poor does NOT equate to having lower moral values. Having low moral values is something you CHOOSE, because you CAN change that. I didn't say that and apologize for mistakenly guessing at your upbringing. Your attitude sounds like that of someone I worked with a few years back. He had been in jail for stealing radios out of cars, and he told me that I just did not understand being poor and not having food to eat. I asked him if he and his stealing buddies spent every single penny they got from those stolen radios on food. The answer was NO, some of it went to booze and drugs. I then asked if he had approached the owner of each vehicle and had asked them for a few dollars in exchange for washing their vehicle or some other form of honest work. Again, the answer was no. He CHOSE to steal instead, rather than even ask if there were some way to EARN the money for food. I like your comment that, "...stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime." But you did call it stealing, and that is morally wrong. How many times do I have to explain to you that something does not have to be illegal to be wrong? It does not matter the amount taken without permission to be wrong. Raping a woman in certain countries is not punishable by law, but do you consider it OK to do so if it happens within the borders of that country? I don't advocate stealing one dime from anyone. I do advocate fair use in regards to software. You think they are both stealing and this is where we disagree. I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change, Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them. I, too, have been poor, much poorer than you can even imagine and did not steal either, even though I would not have had any serious legal consequences because, like you, I don't think it's right to take something that belongs to someone else. See the difference? Alias "Alias" wrote in message ... Gregg Hill wrote: You are absolutely beyond hope if you cannot comprehend it now. I am done with you. Gregg Promises, promises. How come you didn't see fit to reply to this?: You obviously was also raised with a Christian silver spoon in your mouth and have no idea what it's like to be poor. To further ruffle your moral feathers, in Spain, stealing anything worth less than 400 euros is not considered a crime. In other words, if you walk into a store here and steal a 300 euro TV, the worst that can happen to you is a fine and, if you're poor, you claim insolvency and pay nothing and do no time. You, I suspect, would like to go back to the times when, in England, stealing was punishable by hanging and being poor was illegal and, if caught being poor, was sent to the "poor house" to work for cruel. To get back to your recently upgraded country, laws that people don't agree to are traditionally broken in order to change them: Prohibition Segregation of blacks Revolutionary War Slavery Marijuana. Etc. Using your "high moral" logic, blacks would still be slaves, no one could drink alcohol, the USA would still be a colony of England and Texas could still give you life for one joint. Alias I certainly hope you do not equate any of the above with using software on a computer, which is a total luxury. My logic would in no way condone slavery. While I do not have faith in God, the Bible still has **tremendous** value in its teachings, such as "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Even though I do not have faith in God, I do realize that it isn't rocket science to know that you should treat people as you would want them to treat you. If you do not want to be owned, abused, whipped, or killed, then you should not own, abuse, whip, or kill someone else. (Yes, that is a huge over-simplification of slavery, but the discussion is not about that travesty in our history). The principal applies to software. If you don't want people stealing from you, don't steal from people (or from Microsoft). I am adamantly against alcohol because of the damage I have seen it do to my friends and to others, but I would not say that no one can drink it. It just enrages me that some piece of garbage kills an entire family with his car because he wanted to drink a beer. That beer was more valuable to him than a human life, and that is just plain twisted. The US would not be a colony of England, because when those people left England to come here and start a new life, the British government had no right to come here and force them to obey the laws of Britain. We had every right to kick their butts out of here. Of course, the ones who came here had no right to screw the Indians, but that is a whole other thread. And as for getting life for one joint, man, I hope not, or our ex-toking(?) President would be in deep doo-doo! Sorry, GW, that just slipped out! I do not look at our planet as you do, with divisional lines drawn on a map. That only leads to people hating each other just because the other guy lives on a different piece of dirt, or worships a different deity. I hate to break the news to you, but you are a human first, then a person of a certain country and/or religion, or lack thereof. If all lines on all maps got erased, and all religions ceased to exist, all you would have left is a bunch of humans living on a big wet rock in space. You can change your country, you can change your religion, but you cannot change the fact that you are a human being. Look at it that way and you see the fallacy of war, stealing from other people, hating your neighbor because he is Muslim or she is Christian, etc. Is it OK with you if I do not respond any further and actually spend my time doing some work, or having fun with my wife? In closing, moral values are something you choose. I choose to keep mine where they are and treat people as I would have them treat me. Take care, Alias! Gregg |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume LicenseEdition
Leythos wrote:
In article , says... You think they are both stealing and this is where we disagree. I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change, Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them. Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue without breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from protesting without breaking the rules/laws. With your "logic", blacks would still be slaves, marijuana use would still be a felony and the USA would still be a colony of England. I do not break the rules. Every computer I have has legal licenses. That said, if Spain forces MS to stop their "anti piracy" rules and allow fair use, I will change my M.O., although I have no use or interest in Vista so I may not have a chance to take advantage of that. When a computer buddy of mine comes back from the States, we will be looking into Linux because, my friend, I have principles and one of those principles is not supporting a monopoly that pretends to tell me what I can or can't do in the privacy of my home with something I bought. People that break the rules/laws and then claim "Fair Use" or I'm doing it to prove a point about the rule/law being wrong, are just taking the slackers way out. Tell that to the Founding Fathers, Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks. If you lived in the 50s and saw some blacks eating in a white restaurant, you would have probably called Bull Conner because they were "breaking the law". The rules will not change, they will get worse, as proven by what MS is doing now, and it's because of people like you, based on your actions, that cause things to get worse. People like me do protest. A$$holes like you think they're morally superior to everyone else. I have yet to see you protest one thing MS has done. All I see you doing is telling everyone how moral and correct you are and how immoral and incorrect the protesters are. Vista will be a flop and their draconian "anti piracy" features will be the best thing that has ever happened to Linux and XP. IE7 has made Fire Fox's day. Alias |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:53:38 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote:
Apparently you missed the point about not taking something from someone without permission or compensation. As I said before, it does not have to be illegal to be wrong. And you missed my clearly stated point that by entering the free market, the seller AGREED to play by the legal rules governing the local marketplace. How can ignoring the EULA and making copies for your friends be immoral if the seller, by entering the market, has agreed that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for their friends? And, yes, I have returned software products before. Sure you have. Maybe one or two over the years, but it's not the rule for most software purchases in the US. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 13:04:03 +0000, Leythos wrote:
In article , says... You think they are both stealing and this is where we disagree. I compared breaking the EULA to breaking laws like prohibition, slavery, marijuana, etc. and you had no comment. If everyone lock steps to Microsoft's rules not only will they not change, Microsoft will believe everyone agrees with them. Most people that are ethical know that they can protest and argue without breaking the rules/laws - there is nothing to stop you from protesting without breaking the rules/laws. That's not always the case, but it is here. The way to protest ripoff policies and oppressive software licenses is to actively support open source software. That both provides an alternative now, and encourages the software industry to change its greedy ways as it loses market share to OSS. Pirating commercial software only provides an excuse for ever more draconian laws and technologies. The same is true in music. There are many great indie groups out there who charge good prices and don't DRM their music AND let you preview the entire album for free. A good site for those who haven't tried the Indie groups yet is http://www.magnatunes.com, where you can try, download, and are even encouraged to help distribute, 128-bps MP3's of complete albums. If you like the music, the cost of a CD-quality bitrate is whatever you feel it's worth, down to a minimum of $5 per album. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Valid Product Keys for Windows XP SP2 Professional Volume License Edition
Again you have missed the point. Whether or not there is law, morality and
ethics still exist. If you cannot comprehend that fact, then stop reading now. The EULA, which stands for END USER License Agreement, is an agreement between the END USER and Microsoft. The END USER technically agrees to the END USER License Agreement before he/she can use the software. Now if that END USER copies the software and gives it to friends or installs it multiple times, the END USER has violated the agreement. Here is where ethics and morality step up to the plate. An ethical and moral END USER does not have to jump up and down and claim that his country's law allows him to go against the END USER License Agreement. An ethical and moral END USER abides by the END USER License Agreement, regardless of whether or not that agreement is legally binding in one's country of residence, simply because the manufacturer of the product has the right to determine how many times it is to be installed per license purchased. An ethical and moral end user knows that there is a choice: abide by it, or do not use it. Show me one EULA that claims that, "We, the seller, by entering the market, have agreed that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for their friends" and I will agree with you. Why? Because at that point the manufacturer would be giving permission to make the copies. SO far, no EULA I have seen does that. Not to mention that you seem to have missed the overall point of this entire thread, i.e., that this thread is about the leaked volume license keys and the pirates that use them. In those cases, not one of the people using a key has paid for it, so EVERY use of it is unethical and immoral, if not illegal, regardless of the country of residence. As far as returns, the store will always hassle you, but the manufacturer will take it back, at least in my experience. Gregg "arachnid" wrote in message newsan.2006.11.11.13.51.15.566923@goawayspammers .com... On Fri, 10 Nov 2006 18:53:38 -0800, Gregg Hill wrote: Apparently you missed the point about not taking something from someone without permission or compensation. As I said before, it does not have to be illegal to be wrong. And you missed my clearly stated point that by entering the free market, the seller AGREED to play by the legal rules governing the local marketplace. How can ignoring the EULA and making copies for your friends be immoral if the seller, by entering the market, has agreed that the EULA isn't binding and that buyers can make copies for their friends? And, yes, I have returned software products before. Sure you have. Maybe one or two over the years, but it's not the rule for most software purchases in the US. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|